| From: Lucas Stach
| Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 1:51 AM
|
| Am Donnerstag, den 27.04.2017, 12:19 -0500 schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
| >
| >
| > I thought Relaxed Ordering was an optimization. Are there cases where
| > it is actually required for correct behavior?
|
|
ernel.org; Catalin Marinas; Will Deacon; Linuxarm; David
> Laight; jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Robin
> Murphy; da...@davemloft.net; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the
> ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_A
Am Donnerstag, den 27.04.2017, 12:19 -0500 schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
> [+cc Casey]
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:18:33AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Ding Tianhong
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Amir:
> > >
> > > It is really glad to hear that
| From: Bjorn Helgaas
| Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:19 AM
|
| Are you hinting that the PCI core or arch code could actually *enable*
| Relaxed Ordering without the driver doing anything? Is it safe to do that?
| Is there such a thing as a device that is capable of using
Thanks for adding me to the Cc list Bjorn. Hopefully my message will make
it out to the netdev and linux-pci lists -- I'm not currently subscribed to
them. I've explicitly marked this message to be sent in plain text but
modern email agents suck with respect to this. (sigh) I have officially
[+cc Casey]
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:18:33AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Ding Tianhong
> wrote:
> > Hi Amir:
> >
> > It is really glad to hear that the mlx5 will support RO mode this year, if
> > so, do you agree that enable it
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> Hi Amir:
>
> It is really glad to hear that the mlx5 will support RO mode this year, if
> so, do you agree that enable it dynamic by ethtool -s xxx,
> we have try it several month ago but there was only one drivers
org; Dingtianhong;
> Linuxarm
> *Subject:* RE: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the
> ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_ORDER
>
> From: Gabriele Paoloni
>> Sent: 13 April 2017 10:11
>> > > Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
rphy;
> > jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com; alexander.du...@gmail.com; linux-arm-
> > ker...@lists.infradead.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Dingtianhong;
> > Linuxarm
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the
> > ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_OR
inux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Dingtianhong;
> Linuxarm
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the
> ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_ORDER
>
> Hi,
> mlx5 driver is planned to have RO support this year.
> I believe drivers s
.kirs...@intel.com; alexander.du...@gmail.com; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Dingtianhong;
> Linuxarm
> Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the
> ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_ORDER
>
> From: Gabriele Paoloni
> >
From: Gabriele Paoloni
> Sent: 13 April 2017 10:11
> > > Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
> > > Relaxed ordering in the drivers for special architecture,
> > > but the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER is looks like a general name
> > > for all arch, so rename to a specific name for intel
>
From: Gabriele Paoloni
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:10:32 +
> Wouldn't it be more correct to have this as a driver specific symbol
> now and move it to a generic one later once we have other drivers
> requiring it?
No, it would not.
Hi David
> -Original Message-
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the
> ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_ORDER
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 11:26:03 -0700
> From: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
> To: dingtianh...@huawei.com
>
On 2017/4/5 21:05, John Garry wrote:
> On 02/04/2017 07:49, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017/4/2 2:26, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Ding Tianhong
>>> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:25:51 +0800
>>>
Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
Relaxed
On 02/04/2017 07:49, Ding Tianhong wrote:
On 2017/4/2 2:26, David Miller wrote:
From: Ding Tianhong
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:25:51 +0800
Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
Relaxed ordering in the drivers for special architecture,
but the
On 2017/4/2 2:26, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ding Tianhong
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:25:51 +0800
>
>> Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
>> Relaxed ordering in the drivers for special architecture,
>> but the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER is looks like a
From: Ding Tianhong
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:25:51 +0800
> Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
> Relaxed ordering in the drivers for special architecture,
> but the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER is looks like a general name
> for all arch, so rename to a specific
Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
Relaxed ordering in the drivers for special architecture,
but the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER is looks like a general name
for all arch, so rename to a specific name for intel
card looks more appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong
19 matches
Mail list logo